oral arguments

During oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court today, the justices appeared split on whether having to go through an extensive screening after working in an Amazon warehouse is something workers should be paid for or is more akin to checking out at the end of one's shift, Tony Mauro, writing in Supreme Court Brief, reports. "Former Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing his 75th case before the justices, asserted on behalf of the employer that 'the exit screenings are a logical part of the egress process' that does not require payment to workers," Mauro reports.
 

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, writing in the Los Angeles Times, argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should follow the lead of the 9th Circuit and add live streaming of court proceedings: "When Justice David H. Souter uttered his now-infamous declaration in 1996 that cameras would roll into the Supreme Court over his dead body, the Internet was relatively new and Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the iPhone were as real as Capt. Kirk's communicator. Today, there are few facets of daily life that are not available instantly online, including many criminal trials, which you can even watch on your mobile device at 30,000 feet. What this has done is create an expectation by the public that if something is truly important, it can be witnessed firsthand."

The Washington Post's Robert Barnes reports on oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on where custody proceedings should be held in international custody disputes. While the case is the third the justices have heard about the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in four years, this current case involves an issue of first impression: "The Hague Convention says that if a motion is filed within 12 months of the abduction, the child must be returned to the country of origin. But after that, a judge may consider whether a child has become 'settled' in his or her new home, and whether it would not be in the child’s interest to be uprooted again for custody hearings. [Father Manuel Jose] Lozano couldn’t file the motion before the 12-month deadline because he didn’t know where his daughter was. He is asking the court to find that the 12-month period does not start until a parent locates the missing child."

The U.S. Supreme Court looks like it is prepared to throw out a pilot's $1.4 million award for defamation, Reuters reports. According to Reuters, the 2001 Aviation and Transportation Security Act immunizes airlines from defamation suits based on security-threat reports, so long as those "reports were not intentionally false or misleading." The Colorado Supreme Court said it did not need to decide whether the reports about the airline pilot (that he was mentally unstable and could be carrying a gun) were false before deciding whether the airline had immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, "seemed to take issue with that conclusion" during oral argument today, Reuters concludes.

The Connecticut Supreme Court is considering whether petitioner Charlotte Stacey is entitled to loss of consortium even though she was not married to her female domestic partner, who allegedly died from medical malpractice, The Hartford Courtant reports. While Connecticut only allows loss of consortium for legally married spouses, Stacey argues that her constitutional rights were violated because she and her deceased partner wanted to be married but could not wed until the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state law banning same-sex matrimony was unconstitutional, The Courant further reports. Oral arguments in the case were held this week.

The Guardian reports on U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments today in a case in which the state of Michigan argues that the Bay Mills Indian Community inappropriately opened an off-reservation casino without authorization of the federal government and in violation of a state agreement. Some of the justices took a skeptical view of the position that tribal sovereignity gives extra protection against closing the casino or other action by Michigan. Justice Stephen Breyer, for one, said, "My belief is Indian tribes all over the country, operate businesses off the reservation, and businesses all over the country are regulated. And does the State, I guess, in your view not have the power to enforce the regulation against the Indian tribe?" The Guardian reported.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral argments last week in a case in which conservative plaintiffs argue the state's domestic partner registry violates the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has a conservative-leaning majority, The Associated Press reported. The registry gives legal rights to same-sex couples like "the right to visit each other in hospitals and make end-of-life decisions for each other," the AP also reported.
 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether to change the state's products liability law to allow for negligence principles. "The Third Restatement allows arguments on the foreseeability of a product's risk and requires a plaintiff to establish that an alternative, safer design was viable when the product was manufactured, effectively opening the door for defendants to insert issues of negligence into products liability litigation. The Second Restatement focuses litigation on the characteristics of the products, and does not allow a fact-finder to consider the manufacturer's conduct, or the feasibility and practicality of an alternative design," The Legal Intelligencer, Pennsylvania's legal newspaper (and my journalism alma mater), reports.

Two Pennsylvania institutions--Penn State University and the Catholic Church-- were shown to have severe institutional problems of failing to protect children from sex abuse due to two criminal prosecutions. The guilty verdicts were reached the same night against ex-football coach Jerry Sandusky for sexually abusing multiple victims and against Monsignor William Lynn, the first Catholic Church official in the country to be convicted of a crime related to the sexual abuse of youth who were directly abused by other clergy. Appellete arguments in both cases coincided the same day too. Here's a roundup of coverage of the legal arguments before separate panels in the Pennsylvania Superior Court in both cases:

Sandusky:

Allentown Morning Call- Sandusky lawyer cites delay in victims reporting abuse in reasoning for new trial: http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-penn-state-jerry-sandusky-appeal-0...

Harrisburg Patriot-News- Jerry Sandusky gets his day in appeals court: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/09/jerry_sandusky_gets_h...

Scranton Times-Tribune- http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/justices-to-decide-new-sandusky-trial-1...

Lynn:

The Legal Intelligencer- Superior Ct. Hears Arguments In Priest Sex-Abuse Case:

http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202619567790&Superior_Ct_...

Philadelphia Inquirer-Convicted monsignor's lawyer questions law's application: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20130918_Convicted_priests_la...

Associated Press- Pennsylvania Appeals Court Hears Monsignor Lynn’s Endangerment Case: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/09/17/pennsylvania-appeals-court-h...